[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 122 (Wednesday, October 4, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9788-S9792]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               THE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE AND ENERGY POLICY

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, like millions of Americans last night, 
I watched the Presidential debate with a great deal of interest. It was 
one of the more memorable debates in recent history for a number of 
reasons.
  First, of course, as a Republican, I was very proud of the job that 
Governor Bush did. It is probably fair to say that he was matched 
against a very experienced debater, Vice President Gore, but I think 
the Governor held his own in many respects. From the broad issues of 
prescription drugs to Medicare, education to energy, Governor Bush very 
clearly laid out what the choice is for the American people in this 
election.
  Governor Bush engaged the issues. They were not dodged. The Governor 
was clear in laying out the goals and objectives he would propose in 
his administration, if he were elected President.
  I was particularly pleased with the debate because it focused on 
energy, which is one of the crucial issues facing the American people 
today and has probably received the least publicity. Obviously, in the 
areas of education, prescription drugs, health, and Social Security, we 
are all trying to build a better structure, a long lasting structure, 
and also address what to do with the surplus.
  But the issue on energy is quite clear. We have a crisis in this 
country. It has developed over a period of the last 7\1/2\ years. It 
has not been addressed by the current administration. I am very pleased 
that we have, in the energy area, a distinct separation on the issues 
between the candidates, and the American public can clearly understand 
and, as a consequence, view the merits of each proposal.
  The Vice President said, in regard to a question on energy policy, 
and I quote:

       I am for doing something on the supply side and the 
     consumption side.

  I have no doubt that that is the case, but I point out in the past 8 
years we haven't had any indication of specifically what the Vice 
President would do on these issues. As a consequence, I think he is 
headed in the wrong direction, and the American public are becoming 
more and more aware.
  What we have seen happen is the emergence of an issue that in many 
respects our friends on the other side of the aisle hope will go away 
or not become a major issue prior to the election. With the increasing 
rise in crude oil--10 days ago it was up to an all-time high in 10 
years of $37; it dropped down with the SPR release; now it is coming up 
again--the American public is becoming aware of how crucial not our 
dependence on imported oil necessarily is but the general concern that 
we have sacrificed our traditional areas of dependence on energy, 
whether it be coal, nuclear, or hydro, for a policy that has been 
fostered by this administration that directs everything towards 
utilization of natural gas.
  As a consequence, we have seen the price of natural gas rise from 
$2.16 per thousand cubic feet 10 months ago to better than $5.00 in the 
last quotes that have come out within the last couple weeks. We have 
seen a tremendous increase in the dependence on natural gas at the 
expense of all our other energy sources.
  This has occurred over an 8-year period of time. During that time, 
Clinton-Gore have to stand accountable for what they have done. On the 
supply side, the Vice President has done something. It is a situation 
that the supplies have decreased 18 percent and on the consumption 
side, consumption has increased 14 percent. In spite of our efforts for 
conservation, in spite of our efforts in alternative energy, we have a 
decreased supply and an increased consumption.
  I was astonished when the Vice President said in his response to a 
question on energy policy, and again I quote:

       We need to get serious about this energy crisis in the 
     Congress and in the White House.

  Where has he been for the last 7\1/2\ years? While I don't agree with 
him in terms of Congress not being serious, I was glad to see they 
finally admitted it was not an issue taken seriously in the White House 
for the past 7\1/2\ years. That was certainly the implication.
  We have had statements from our Secretary of Energy relative to the 
fact that the administration was caught napping with regard to energy 
prices, as we have seen the price of oil go from $10 a barrel a year 
ago to $37 within the last few weeks.
  Now, I think, while it didn't come up in the debate last night 
specifically, there was a generalization to blame big oil. Well, who is 
big oil, Mr. President? Who sets the price of oil? We had a hearing 
before the Energy and Natural Resource Committee, which I chair. It was 
rather interesting because the Secretary of Energy did acknowledge that 
it is OPEC, the supplier, setting the price of oil. We are 58-percent 
dependent on OPEC. Who is OPEC? The Mideast countries that have the 
excess capacity, such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and moving down to 
Central America is Venezuela, and then we also have Mexico. They have 
the supply; we have the appetite. They set the price. So to blame big 
oil for profiteering, or to make the implication of profiteering, is 
totally unrealistic and a bit irresponsible, in my opinion. There is no 
mention, of course, in general terms of the assumption that perhaps our 
oil industry was simply benevolent when they were selling at $10 a 
barrel a little more than a year ago. They are not so benevolent now 
because, obviously, they don't set the price. It is a supply and demand 
issue.
  When the Vice President said we needed to get serious about the 
energy crisis, I think it is apparent that there has been a lack of 
attention during this in the administration, because Congress has 
acted. Specifically, Congress passed legislation granting deep water 
royalty relief. Congress passed legislation to help our domestic oil 
and gas industry through tax incentives, which they vetoed. Congress 
passed legislation that would handle the country's nuclear waste, which 
they vetoed. Congress passed legislation to open up the Coastal Plain 
of ANWR--that sliver in the Arctic--to responsible development, which 
they vetoed. That was 6 years ago. Had they passed that legislation, we 
would know what is there. We could have another strategic petroleum 
reserve, and we don't know that. We would be a long way into the 
development stages if indeed the oil were there. I venture to say, Mr. 
President, if we made a commitment to proceed with the Arctic oil 
reserve, you would see a dramatic drop in the price of oil.
  One of the other interesting things the Vice President brought up was 
the implication that we hadn't done anything, or not enough, with 
renewables. In the last 5 years under the Republican Congress, 
expenditures for renewables have been $1.5 billion in new spending and 
$4.5 billion in various tax incentives. So Congress anteed up about 
$4.6 billion total for that purpose. The difficulty is that we simply 
don't have the technology to replace our oil dependence with coal, 
natural gas, and hydrogen.
  Let's not be fooled. It is not just around the corner. The Vice 
President said last night he is a big clean coal fan. Well, what does 
that really mean? You would assume he would support the development of 
coal-fired generating plants in this country. There hasn't been a new 
one built in years. The administration's budget over the last 5 years 
has proposed to rescind or defer more than $1.4 billion in clean coal 
technology. Those are the facts.
  How can you be all things to all people? Well, Vice President Gore 
implies he is pretty good at that. Let's talk a little bit about the 
facts because part of the issue that came up on energy was the 
disposition of the Coastal Plain in Alaska, the State I represent. I 
know something about it. I have been to the coastal plain many, many 
times. I think once again we saw the Vice President in trouble with the 
facts. This is what he said regarding the Arctic Coastal Plain, and I 
quote:

       I think that is the wrong choice. It would only give us a 
     few months' worth of oil, and oil would not start flowing for 
     years into the future.

  Well, the facts are, according to the Department of Energy--the 
Clinton-

[[Page S9789]]

Gore Department of Energy--this area could be the largest field ever 
discovered in North America--possibly 16 billion barrels of recoverable 
oil. If that high estimate of oil is found, it could produce over 20 
percent of our current domestic production levels for the next 20 
years. If the high estimate is found, it would be larger than Prudhoe 
Bay, which has been doing just that--producing 20 to 25 percent of our 
oil for almost the last 25 years.

  I am not surprised that Vice President Gore has a problem with the 
facts on this issue. One need only read his official position on why he 
wants to ``protect the Arctic Coastal Plain'' to see that he is 
terribly misinformed. He says, ``The wildlife refuge's Coastal Plain--
where drilling would occur--is home to polar bears, grizzlies and black 
bear, Dall sheep, wolves and moose.''
  I know something about this area. I assure you there are no black 
bears and no Dall sheep in the Coastal Plain. Dall sheep are a 
mountainous species, and perhaps some Members in this body would have 
you believe otherwise, but there are no mountains in the Coastal 
Plains. It is very flat for miles and miles and miles.
  What did Governor Bush say? Well, Governor Bush said it is better to 
produce energy here at home, where we can do it in an environmentally 
sound manner than to continue relying on imported sources of energy. I 
particularly agree that it is better that we explore at home, using our 
technology and environmental sensitivity, and do it right, rather than 
going over to the rain forests in Colombia, where there are no 
environmental constraints and they would ship it into this country on 
foreign tankers, which have the exposure to an accident off our shores 
by companies that don't have the deep pockets associated with the 
tragic accident that occurred in my State. Nevertheless, it seems as if 
this administration would continue to rely on the likes of Saddam 
Hussein for our energy security. That is about where we are.
  I am going to conclude my presentation this morning on one segment of 
our energy policy that needs clarification. It is an issue that the 
environmental community has perpetrated on our American citizens; that 
is, that there is something extraordinarily unique, and there is 
something that, by its implication, suggests that we cannot explore 
and, if we find hydrocarbons, develop them safely. That is the argument 
over ANWR--or, as we refer to it, the Coastal Plain--a small portion of 
the area which is proposed to be opened for exploration and can only be 
done by the Congress of the United States.
  Before I go into it, I think the public should be aware of another 
fact that has come up. You will recall the other day the Vice President 
recommended to the President that we release crude oil from the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve, about 30 million barrels. That 30 million 
barrels was estimated to be a supply of heating oil, after it was 
refined, that would equal about a 3-day supply. I think it was about 3 
or 4 million barrels of heating oil we would get out of that release.
  I think it is also interesting to recognize that in the wintertime we 
consume about 4 million barrels of distillate--including heating oil a 
day. What I can't understand is the reality that we are exporting 
heating oil--heating oil that ordinarily you would assume would be 
going into inventories to meet the anticipated winter demand for 
heating oil in the Northeast Corridor. More than 117,000 barrels per 
day of distillate, as I understand it, are being shipped over to Europe 
and other places.
  If the President has the power--which he certainly and evidently has 
taken--to remove oil from the SPR, why would he not prohibit the export 
of any heating oil refined from that oil? It is diesel that is going 
overseas currently. It doesn't make sense. I will have more information 
specifically, but they seem to have overlooked this in their euphoria 
to get the word out that indeed they are doing something positive about 
the shortage in the Northeast Corridor for heating oil, and the fact we 
are allowing a refined product to go to Europe is unconscionable and 
certainly goes against the argument that we needed to release oil from 
SPR.
  Let me get into my presentation this morning because I want to try to 
communicate what this issue is about--ANWR, what are the facts and what 
is the fix. Hopefully, we can address that this morning since this 
issue has been brought up in the Presidential debates and clearly is 
attracting the attention of the American people, many of whom simply 
don't have an appreciation because they have never been there.
  My State of Alaska is a pretty big piece of real estate. It is one-
fifth the size of the lower United States. If you overlay Alaska over 
the entire lower United States, it will range from Canada to Mexico and 
Florida to California over to the Aleutian Islands 1,000 miles out to 
the west.
  This little portion up here of our State is called the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge--perhaps inaccurately named because not all of 
it is a refuge nor all of it a wildlife area. There is an area that was 
carved out by Congress in 1980. In their wisdom, Congress took this 
area, which is 19 million acres--the size of the State of South 
Carolina--and said let's make a wilderness out of part of it and a 
wildlife refuge out of the other part. They took 8.5 million acres and 
made a wilderness in perpetuity; it is not going to be changed. They 
made another 9 million acres into what we call a refuge. But they left 
this area called the Coastal Plain, or the 1002 area, out of any 
permanent land designation until Congress made its determination as to 
its status.
  During this time, there were certain activities with regard to oil 
and gas exploration, and it was suggested that there might be a 
significant reserve in this general area.
  As you know, Prudhoe Bay is here--not too far away. That is where we 
have been producing about 25 percent of the total crude oil produced in 
this country. We built an 800-mile pipeline down to Valdez where the 
oil flows and moves down to the west coast of the United States. This 
infrastructure is already there. There was a construction project of 
about $7.5 billion to $8 billion, the largest construction project ever 
built in North America. It was designed to handle a little better than 
2 million barrels of crude oil a day. Currently it is handling a little 
over 1 million barrels a day. So there is an unused capacity in 
existence there for over 1 million barrels a day. It would require no 
further adjustment of any kind.
  The idea here is, should we allow exploration in this area and put it 
up for Federal leases? If we do, can we do it safely?
  Of course, the proposal in Governor Bush's energy presentation is to 
take the revenue of some $3 billion anticipated from Federal leases as 
well as the federal royalty share and put that back into conservation 
issues, renewable energy technologies, home heating, and weatherization 
programs; in other words, take the revenue and try to do something 
positive for people to lower costs associated with high energy costs.
  That is a significant step that suggests we can use the revenue which 
the private sector will pay and do something very positive with it, and 
address, if you will, environmental issues that need regeneration in 
other parts of the country with this revenue. The whole question, of 
course, is the status of this area and whether Congress is going to see 
fit to open it up.
  I am going to go through the arguments because I think they really 
mandate an understanding so that there can be an appreciation of the 
merits of this. The first argument that is used in the fictional sense 
is the assumption that 95 percent of this area is already open to oil 
development.
  Here is the area we are talking about. Only a part of the 1,500 mile 
Arctic Coastline is left open for possible development. Only 14 percent 
of the whole 1,500-mile Coastal Plain in Alaska is open to oil 
exploration today--not 95 percent but 14 percent.
  Here is the area. This is closed. This area is open. Some of this 
happens to be State lands. And, except for a small part of the 
coastline, the coastline of the national petroleum reserve is closed 
clear over to Point Hope. To suggest that 95 percent of the area is 
already open is totally inaccurate.

  I will certainly look forward to a spirited debate on this subject if 
somebody wants to take me up on it, including members of the 
environmental groups.

[[Page S9790]]

  We also have 8 million acres of ANWR, as I have indicated, in a 
permanent wilderness. Another 9.5 million acres is classified as 
refuge; that is, 95 percent of the entire range is closed to 
exploration and oil development. It is closed.
  Using modern technology--there is the point I want to highlight--the 
indications are that we would need only 2,000 acres out of the 19 
million acres to develop the proposed oil fields that are believed to 
exist in the ANWR Coastal Plain. That is a pretty small footprint when 
you consider this ANWR area is about the size of the State of South 
Carolina. We are talking about a 2,000-acre footprint, if given the 
opportunity. That is about one-tenth of 1 percent of the 1.5 million 
acres, the 1002 area, and only 1 and one-hundredth percent of the 
entire 19-million acre ANWR area.
  These are the misconceptions that have been forced on the American 
people relative to the significance of what development could take 
place, how small the footprint is, and how large overall the area is, 
and little attention has been given to the infrastructure that is 
already there.
  I also remind people that this is not an untouched area. There is a 
distant early warning radar site there. There is a Native village of 
Kaktovik right in the middle of it where nearly 300 Eskimo people make 
their living and pursue a subsistence lifestyle. It is interesting to 
note that about 70 percent of the people in the village support opening 
the area because they want to have an opportunity for an alternative 
standard of living and lifestyle: Should they choose to foster just 
subsistence, or should they pursue opportunities for jobs.
  Another fiction is that opening up the Coastal Plain would destroy 
the biological part of the wildlife refuge. That really sounds good. 
But let's look at it for a minute.
  The Coastal Plain can be opened to development without harm to the 
wildlife and the environment. Even the Eskimo inhabitants of Kaktovik 
who depend on subsistence hunting and fishing to eke out their living 
in the far north are convinced that oil development can be done safely, 
because of the safeguards, without harm to their land and the wildlife 
on which they depend for their heritage.
  Under legislation I have proposed, No drilling or development 
activities would be allowed during the caribou calving season. Limits 
would be placed on exploration, development, and related activities to 
avoid impacts on fish and wildlife. Initial exploration efforts would 
be limited to a time between November and May--the Arctic winter--to 
guarantee that there would be no impact from exploration, pipelines, or 
roads on the caribou.
  Let's look at some descriptive charts that give you an idea about the 
success of developing this area from what we have learned in Prudhoe 
Bay.
  Here is the Prudhoe Bay area. These are not mannequins, these are 
real caribou. They are wandering around, and nobody is disturbing them. 
You cannot take a gun. There is no shooting allowed. There is no taking 
of game in the entire oil fields. These animals are very adjustable as 
long as they are not harassed. Clearly they are not harassed.
  There is a picture of the caribou herd that happens to be going 
through Prudhoe Bay area.
  The same thing is true with regard to other wildlife. This is the 
pipeline going to Prudhoe Bay. You can see the Arctic tundra over here. 
It is a pretty time. It is a wintertime picture.
  There are three bears here. It is kind of comical because the bears 
are walking on the pipeline. Why? Because it is easier to walk on the 
pipeline than to walk in the snow. They are as smart as the average 
bears around here. In any case, it is a little warmer too. To suggest 
that somehow these animals are going to be fenced out because of some 
activity just isn't supported by any burden of proof.
  We are trying to give some factual, real-life issues associated with 
development in the Arctic and what steps we take to protect the 
environment and ensure we are not going to have difficulties associated 
with the wildlife.
  I also want to show you a little effort by our Canadian friends on 
this side when they begin to initiate an aggressive oil and gas 
exploration program in the Arctic.
  This is the boundary between Canada and Alaska. This is the Northwest 
Territory. We see various villages. The dots represent oil wells that 
have been drilled for exploration purposes. Here is the village of Old 
Crow, just on the Canadian side of the Alaska-Canadian border.
  My point is to show the extent of drilling on the Canadian side in 
the search of oil and gas. Unfortunately, they didn't find any oil and 
gas. This is also the route of the porcupine caribou herd. They move 
through the range and traverse the area. Incidentally, they cross a 
highway, the Dempster Highway. The Canadian Government, when they found 
there was no oil, decided to make it a park. As a consequence, it is a 
park today; that is fine. But to suggest that somehow this activity 
would have some effect on the migration pattern certainly proves it 
didn't have much of an effect, and the highway and the caribou 
traversing it did not have an effect on the herds. In the proposals we 
have for development in Alaska, the technology today is very different.
  This photograph gives an idea of the development of an oil well in 
Alaska today. There are no roads, no gravel. This is an ice road. That 
is the technology used. They build up the ice and use it as a road. 
This is a well. You can see the Arctic Ocean. It is a pretty tough 
area. It has its own uniqueness, its own beauty, but is a very hostile 
environment.
  When exploration activity is completed, this is the picture we have 
during the short summer. It is the same area. There is no despoiling of 
the tundra. This represents the technology that is available today.
  The Coastal Plain has been declared America's last wilderness. It is 
not wilderness. However, an awful lot of our State is wilderness. We 
have 56 million acres of wilderness. The point is we protect the 
wilderness. We can protect these areas.
  In our State less than 1 percent of the entire State, 365 million 
acres, is in private ownership and available for development. We have 
192 million acres of parks, preserves, conservation system units. As I 
have said, there are 56 million acres of wilderness, 61 percent of all 
American wilderness. How much is enough? I am not here to debate. 
Wilderness in Alaska already covers an area equal to Pennsylvania, New 
Jersey, West Virginia, and Maryland.
  Further in the Coastal Plain lies this village of Eskimo people. This 
picture demonstrates what it is like to take a walk on the North Slope 
in the wintertime. There are a couple of kids in the village walking 
down the street. It is blowing snow. Aren't these kids entitled to a 
different lifestyle, should they wish? The answer clearly is yes. When 
they say there has been nothing in this area, they are misleading. It 
is inaccurate. This is the wilderness, this is the refuge, this is what 
Congress is debating, and this is where the oil is likely to occur in 
the footprint of 2,000 acres.
  Some suggest it is only a 90-day, or a 200-day supply of oil. Prudhoe 
Bay was estimated to produce 9 billion barrels. It has produced over 12 
billion barrels today. It is still producing over a million barrels a 
day. When we look at potential production, we are looking at the 
potential of 16 billion barrels. When we talk about a 200-day supply, 
we assume there will not be any oil produced from any other source. It 
is a fictional argument.
  I have talked about the caribou, but I want to show again the 
significance of this with regard to Prudhoe Bay. This picture is a 
different herd than exists in the ANWR area. This is the central arctic 
herd. There is no indication that an environmentally responsible 
exploration will harm the porcupine caribou which, I might add, is 
129,000 now. As a matter of fact, we have about three times as many 
caribou in our State as we have people--not that that is anything 
significant, but it is a fact. We have had 26 years in Prudhoe Bay of 
protecting these animals. The central herd has grown from 3,000 animals 
in 1978 to 19,700 today. That is a fact.

  These arguments suggesting somehow we will decimate the wildlife 
simply is not based on any accurate information. It is an emotional 
argument. This is one of the travesties that has been taking place--
exploiting the American public to suggest we cannot

[[Page S9791]]

open this area safely. Why has the environmental community pursued 
this? It generates membership. It generates dollars, gives them a 
cause, and it is so far away people cannot see for themselves. I can't 
say how many ``experts'' in this body have opinions but have never been 
there. Their material is written by the Wilderness Society. It is 
written by the Sierra Club.
  Caribou will flourish in ANWR as they have throughout Alaska. In 
these areas, no hunting will be allowed by anyone other than a Native.
  We have heard a good deal from the Gwich'in group, the group of 
Natives on the Canadian and the Alaskan side. The suggestion is this 
will destroy their culture. Nothing will prevent the caribou herd from 
passing close to the Gwich'in villages. That is where they yearly hunt, 
when they come through. They will continue to have the availability of 
the caribou for their subsistence. Strict controls are planned to 
prevent disruption of the caribou herds during the summer calving. The 
caribou calve in the northern area, but they calve, depending on 
weather schedules, snowfall, bugs, and predators--sometimes they calve 
on the Canadian side; sometimes they calve on the Alaskan side. The 
point is, the Gwich'in group that is dependent will be protected as a 
consequence of ensuring that there is no activity on the Arctic Slope 
during the time of the migration. That can be simply asserted by 
regulations, and we have agreed to do that.
  It is interesting to note that the Gwich'in group, 15 years ago, 
issued a request for a proposal to lease their own land, about 1.7 
million acres for oil development. Maybe the oil companies should have 
bought. Unfortunately, there wasn't any oil. As a consequence, the 
leases were not taken up. Now the Gwich'ins are entitled to change 
their mind, and that is what they have done.
  The truth is, they are funded by the Wilderness Society. They are 
funded by the Sierra Club. We have tried time and time again to 
encourage some of the Gwich'ins to go from their traditional area and 
go to Point Barrow and see what the Eskimos think of resource 
development associated with oil and gas.
  I recall one of my friends took a group up. He is an Eskimo from 
Barrow. He said he used to go to school to keep warm. But before he 
did, he had to go to the beach to pick up driftwood that flowed down 
the river--no trees, but driftwood, to keep warm. He says: We have an 
alternative lifestyle now. We have a choice. We can take a job. We have 
educational opportunities.
  They are able to provide a full 4-year college scholarship to any 
member of their community who wants to go. They can do that because 
they have revenues associated with their Barrow's taxing base on the 
oil pipeline. So it has brought about an alternative in lifestyle and a 
choice that people previously did not have.
  These people are entitled to the same things to which you and I are 
entitled, if they so choose. So when you look at these kids, look at 
whether or not they want to continue to rely on the subsistence 
economy, following game, or whether they want an opportunity to have a 
college education and come back, maybe, as a doctor or nurse or 
whatever. They are given this opportunity through activities associated 
with creating the tax base of their communities. Should they not be 
heard as well?
  I was amused at the inconsistencies associated with the environmental 
community. The Audubon Society currently holds leases in the Paul J. 
Rainey Wildlife Preserve in Louisiana. They hold oil leases. They 
generate revenue. There is nothing wrong with that, but it is an 
inconsistency they do not care to acknowledge or admit. If it is OK for 
the Audubon Society to have revenues from oil in a preserve, the Paul 
J. Rainey Wildlife Preserve in Louisiana, why shouldn't the Natives of 
my State have the same opportunity for their own land? It seems to me 
there is certainly justification.
  There is another myth: Canada has protected their wildlife; we should 
do the same. We went through that. The Canadians finally created a 
national park, but they did so only after extensive exploration failed. 
The Canadians drilled 89 exploration wells on their side with no 
success. They also extended the Dempster Highway, cutting across the 
center of the Porcupine caribou herds' route.
  Another fiction we hear all the time: Oil exploration would destroy 
polar bear habitat. Doesn't that sound terrific? The reality is polar 
bears den on the Arctic ice pack, not on land. The administration has 
positively identified only 15 polar bear dens on the entire Coastal 
Plain for an 11-year period; that is one or two dens a year. We have a 
healthy population of polar bears, estimated at about 2,000. The reason 
is we do not shoot them. You can go to Canada and take a polar bear for 
a trophy. You can go to Russia. You can't do it in the United States. 
The only people who can take polar bear are the Native people for 
subsistence. The environmentalists don't tell you that.
  However, they do tell you Prudhoe Bay has been littered with chemical 
and oil spills, the Arctic having been despoiled by three or four--
whatever figure they want to use. But the figure that is accurate is 
17,000 spills since 1970. That is the accurate figure. How can you have 
those spills with such a pristine environment? The fact is, as a 
consequence of the environmental oversight and requirements, every 
spill of any material--even if it is fresh water--has to be reported; 
any spill that is how you get 17,000 spills.
  For example, in 1993 there were 160 spills involving 60,000 gallons. 
Before you jump to conclusions, only 2 spills involved oil. Roughly 9.5 
gallons of oil were spilled from a leaky valve. Any oil and chemical 
spills have almost always been confined to frozen gravel pads where 
they are easily cleaned up. Moving more than 1 million barrels of oil a 
day, everyday, from the ground, through the pipe and onto ships--9.5 
gallons of oil spilled. I think that is a remarkable record. Prudhoe 
Bay is the finest oil field in the world bar none. We send kids up from 
Anchorage and Fairbanks to pick up the few papers that happen to blow 
around. It is a summer job.
  Another fiction: Producing more oil would simply cause Americans to 
buy more gas-guzzling cars and defeat conservation efforts. America 
does need to be more energy efficient. It does need to develop more 
alternative fuels. Even with increased energy efficiency and 
conservation, our energy demands are forecast to increase 30 percent by 
the year 2010. By then, America will be producing just 5.2 million 
barrels of oil per day. We will be forced to import 65 percent of our 
oil needs. This certainly poses a threat to our national security. We 
would need 30 giant foreign-flagged supertankers a day, more than 
10,000 a year, coming into our ports to import the oil we need. That 
creates much more environmental risk than developing our own resources 
where we have the tough environmental requirements.

  The vast majority of Americans oppose disturbing the Alaska Arctic 
National Refuge--that is what the environmentalists would have you 
believe. Americans strongly support responsible development when they 
know the facts about it. That is what I have attempted to do today.
  I encourage my colleagues to give me an opportunity to debate them if 
they want to challenge these facts. A poll taken by the Gordon S. Black 
Corp. said 56 percent of Americans support ANWR leasing; 37 percent 
oppose; 74 percent of Americans support efforts to produce domestic oil 
and natural gas. That is what Governor Bush proposed last night--
producing more oil here at home and not being dependent on imports. 
Certainly, most Alaskans support ANWR. The entire congressional 
delegation, the Democratic Governor, 78 percent of the residents of 
Kaktovik, this little village, support it.
  Some say what are we doing exporting from Alaska? We don't export oil 
from Alaska. There was some exported when we had surplus oil on the 
west coast of the United States. That has not occurred for several 
months.
  Finally, they suggest we are a wealthy State, we don't need ANWR. 
That is a ridiculous argument. We have, in Alaska, the highest cost of 
living in the nation. We have billions of dollars of unmet 
infrastructure needs like sanitation for our village's health needs. We 
have no roads across most of Alaska. We have, probably, the most 
fragile economy of any State in the Union. We have always depended on 
resource industries, but our timber industry has been shut down by this 
administration. We have lost our jobs in

[[Page S9792]]

Ketchikan and Sitka, our only two year-round manufacturing plants. Our 
oil and gas jobs are down.
  The worst thing is we have had 32,000 young Alaskans leave Alaska 
since 1992 as a consequence of not having opportunities for these 
people within our State because we are dependent on developing 
resources and the Federal Government controls the landmass in our 
State.
  I hope as we continually debate the issues before us as we enter this 
Presidential campaign, and the issue of energy comes to the forefront, 
as it should, as a distinct issue between the two candidates, we will 
have a better understanding of the merits of opening up this area of 
the Arctic for the relief that is needed in this country today. I 
predict if this administration would commit to opening up this area for 
oil and gas leasing, you would see a drop in the price of oil 
overnight. As a consequence, the belief that America meant business 
when it said we were going to relieve our dependence on imported oil 
would mean we would not be subject to the whims of the individual who 
controls, if you will, the difference between the world's capacity to 
produce and the world's current demand--which is about 1.5 million 
barrels with supply being a little over the demand. That one person is 
Saddam Hussein, in Iraq, who is currently producing almost 3 million 
barrels a day. The fear is he will cut production. If he cuts 
production, we will see oil prices go from $37 to probably $60 a 
barrel. That, coupled with the instability associated with the current 
spokesperson from OPEC, from Venezuela, who has made certain 
suggestions that clearly the object of OPEC in Venezuela is to protect 
the interests of the small countries of the world at the expense of the 
large consumers of hydrocarbons, means we have a very unstable 
situation.
  I hope the American people have a better understanding of what has 
happened in the last 8 years as this current administration has 
abandoned the traditional dependence on many sources of energy--oil, 
natural gas, hydrocarbons associated with our coal industry, our 
nuclear industry and our hydroelectric industry--and clearly focused 
the future on our energy supply of natural gas.
  As a consequence, we have seen what has happened with natural gas. 
Demand has gone up, and we are in a situation now where other countries 
are dictating conditions under which we have to pay the price they 
charge or go without. It is strictly supply and demand. It has been 
coming for a long time, and the Clinton-Gore administration bears the 
responsibility for not having a responsible energy policy. That is why 
I am so pleased to see Governor Bush come forward and acknowledge what 
has to be done, and among those issues is more domestic production.
  The fact he has stated the belief that we can open up this area 
safely I think deserves full examination and explanation to the 
American public. That is what I have attempted to do today.
  I thank my colleague for the opportunity to speak in morning 
business. I see the floor leader, Senator Gorton, is on the floor. I 
believe the pending business is the Interior appropriations bill.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. L. Chafee). The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Will the Chair inform the Senator from Nevada as to how 
much time the Senator from Alaska consumed?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Forty-seven minutes.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, that indicates that after the Senator from 
New York speaks, there will be 25 minutes remaining on this side. Even 
though it was not part of the order, I ask unanimous consent that the 
time of the minority be used all at the same time, that there not be 
any interruption. I believe that was the intent of the unanimous 
consent agreement entered earlier today--that we would have equal time 
in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct, although the minority 
will control 32 minutes following Senator Schumer's statement.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to 
speak prior to Senator Schumer and use whatever time I may consume, 
which will be about 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________